Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 9:45 AM
    • 55Posts
    • 39Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Appeal dismissed by IAS
    • #1
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:45 AM
    Appeal dismissed by IAS 13th Sep 17 at 9:45 AM


    The adjudicator made their decision on 12/09/2017 12:16:07.

    The Appellant argues that they should not be required to pay the parking charge, as the ticket machines on site were not working correctly. The Appellant appears to suggest that as the ticket machines on site did not appear to be accepting payment they left their vehicle parked with a note displayed and went about their business. A helpline number is provided by the Operator which the Appellant appears to accept that they did not use at the time of the parking event. The Operator disputes that all of the payment options on site were not available at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued and is able to suggest that payments were being made correctly at the time of the parking event. Even if all the machines on a particular site are not working this does not entitle the driver to free parking. The contractual terms require the driver to purchase and display a valid ticket (or make a valid online payment), otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If the driver cannot purchase and display a ticket (or make a valid online payment) they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are adhered to. By parking without a valid ticket displayed (or having made a valid online payment), regardless of the reason for doing so, the Appellant agreed to pay a charge. I have noted the images provided of the site and I am satisfied that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the signage on display.

    Whilst having sympathy with the circumstances that the Appellant found themselves in they nevertheless chose to remain on site without purchasing or displaying a valid ticket (or making a valid online payment) and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

    Well as you told me my appeal has been dismissed by IAS. As I have mentioned on previous threads I would not have gone down this route if I had discovered this site first. I knew about MSE but did not realise that it covered so many topics.

    I will give some details about the scenario and ask if you consider that it is worth going the whole way or whether I should just cut my losses pay up and move on. If there is a 50/50 chance I will take it all the way.

    The facts of the case are as follows and I will keep as brief as I can.

    I was travelling to Burton on Trent to catch the train to Nottingham. On the way I suffered a migraine and had to stop for around 20 minutes, take some medication and wait for the aura to pass. It would not have been advisable to continue to drive as my vision is affected. I would have missed an earlier train and so I wanted to catch the 10.48 am train to Nottingham and arrived at the Derby Street car around 10.23 am which should have given me enough time to catch the train. I tried to obtain a ticket and the coins fell through the machine. Tried several times and I then noticed that the machine was displaying a sign which said that it was not operational.

    I did not just take a cursory look around but tried to find another machine but I could not find one and I walked over to some men that were working in the arches and asked them and they pointed to a machine belonging to another operator's car park.
    Contemplated moving the car but would may have missed the train (my ticket states that it was purchased at 10.39 am). I must have spent at least 10 minutes trying to obtain a ticket so I left a note on the dashboard and would have willingly paid.

    When I came back to my car later that day a ticket had been placed on my windscreen and this gave notice that I may receive a NTK in the post. I went on line immediately I got home and appealed which was rejected by Excel. The basis that they rejected my appeal was that I was not displaying a valid ticket. They also said that I could have paid by RingGo, telephoned them or moved my car. I do not possess a mobile phone or a smart phone and I had never heard of RingGo. If I had moved the car I would have missed the train and the tariff in the Station Car park is a much higher tariff and I certainly would have not been able to park in the main Station Car park as it fills up very early and I may have struggled to find a space on the Lower Station Car Park.

    With regard to the mobile phone issue I understand that Age UK have concerns about car parks that only use mobile applications as a means of payment as these disadvantage older people. There is a potential equality issue with regard to the use of a smart phone as only about one in five of my age group uses one. To offer RingGo as a means of payment when others are available is not indirect discrimination. To decline my appeal on the basis that I could use a mobile phone application when there was no other means of payment available may be indirect discrimination as it disadvantages my age group. If I had been in possession of a smart phone from all accounts it would have taken over 10 minutes to set up an account and pay.

    So Excel considered that I had three options available to me, move, pay by RingGo, or telephone them in which case they would have been able to sort something out? Excel never mentioned that I could have used another ticket machine and I had assumed that there was only one on the site as I could not find another.

    I appealed to IAS and when I saw the uploads of the site by Excel I noticed that there were other ticket machines. One by the fire door of the Travelodge and the other in the Lower Station car park where Excel have a few spaces. I went back and took some photo's of these and the one near the fire door is not signed at all. It is between two bins of the same colour and looks like a receptacle for cigarette butts. The fire door is often open and staff stand outside having a cigarette. I use the car park infrequently and have not noticed this machine before. The other machine is located at the rear of the Travelodge, is on another operator's car park and is only visible by walking the whole perimeter of the building which means entering another operator's car park. It's very ambiguous.

    There are a couple of cases that are similar to my circumstances 1) Link parking v Mr N, 2) Prendi v Camden.

    I realise that IAS are not that independent but I felt as they had not even bothered to read my comments and were totally on the side of the operator. They really are the !!!! end of the legal profession Whatever else I do I shall be writing to my MP.


    I have read the newbies and I will use the templates should I take this further. What I would really appreciate is thoughts on whether this is worth taking to court and any issues I may have missed such as size of signage. I would struggle a bit with some signage after having a migraine particularly high contrast lettering. I have to say though that I was more concerned with obtaining a ticket than anything else. Thank you.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 13-09-2017 at 9:52 AM.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Sep 17, 9:52 AM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:52 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Sep 17, 9:52 AM
    This is now your fourth thread about this ticket.


    You need to keep everything in one thread - you can't expect us to keep track of this!


    (You were urged not to progress to an IAS appeal as their (inevitable) rejection is something the other side will use in court to back up their case!)
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 10:02 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:02 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:02 AM
    Sorry. My threads before were just generic questions. I had not discussed the full details of the case. I will delete the previous threads. I have explained that I appealed to IAS before I found this site. I think that you can well and truly say that a lesson has been learned.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 13-09-2017 at 10:07 AM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    No, they were uestions related directly to this case, as you were told each time.
    One case one thread is not a tricky rule to follow.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 13th Sep 17, 10:18 AM
    • 3,830 Posts
    • 5,405 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:18 AM
    • #5
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:18 AM
    who's car park was it?
    why haven't you engaged the landowner?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Sep 17, 10:19 AM
    • 15,424 Posts
    • 24,121 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:19 AM
    • #6
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:19 AM
    I have read the newbies and I will use the templates should I take this further. What I would really appreciate is thoughts on whether this is worth taking to court
    You won't be taking anything or anyone to court - they will! And they will be buoyed on by your loss and their win against you at the IAS.

    Excel are probably the second most litigious PPC in the country. Expect a letter from their solicitors.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 10:22 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:22 AM
    • #7
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:22 AM
    I think that Excel lease the land from the owners of the Travelodge. The Travelodge have bad reviews as a result of parking tickets and do not seem very bothered when their customers complain. I was not a customer as the car park is not specifically for visitors to the Travelodge.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 13th Sep 17, 10:30 AM
    • 10,200 Posts
    • 9,342 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:30 AM
    • #8
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:30 AM
    The facts seem to be this.

    1. The ticket machine wasn't working, so you didn't pay.
    2. They claim that there were other ticket machines. You did not check.
    3. There were other ways to pay and you chose not to use them.
    4. They claim you didn't ring them on the number displayed.
    5. Travelodge are unlikely to help as you were not one of their guests.

    It seems to me that you are on the stickiest of wickets and are likely to lose should it reach court.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 10:37 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:37 AM
    • #9
    • 13th Sep 17, 10:37 AM
    I did look for another machine and did not just take a cursory look around. The other machine on the Derby Street Car park was not signed. I don't have a mobile phone so the only option was to move my car. I hear what you are saying though and I thank you for being honest.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 13th Sep 17, 10:39 AM
    • 10,200 Posts
    • 9,342 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    I did look for another machine and did not just take a cursory look around. The other machine on the Derby Street Car park was not signed. I don't have a mobile phone so the only option was to move my car. I hear what you are saying though and I thank you for being honest.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly
    I am just trying to lay down what the other side's case would include. I am not getting at you, as I think you appreciate.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 13th Sep 17, 12:57 PM
    • 3,830 Posts
    • 5,405 Thanks
    Half_way
    is it a travelodge car park?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 13th Sep 17, 1:21 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    I think that the land is leased to Excel. I saw some information online which indicated that there was a lease. Anyone can park there and it is motorists using the station and visitors to the Travelodge use the car park. Excel manage the parking at the fore of the Travelodge and have a few spaces at the rear on the Lower Station Car park which is a different operator and tariff. The visitors to the Travelodge are given a permit for a certain length of time but not all day which causes a few tickets to be issued. That's another story.

    http://www.jenics.com/pdf/jenics-travelodge-burton-update-2.pdf

    The image in the above link shows the rear of the Travelodge before Excel Parking operated there. That is the Lower Station Car Park and where one of Excel ticket machines is located obscured by the protrusions on the building. I wish I could upload the photographs I have taken.


    https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g504150-d3476957-r319883582-Travelodge_Burton_Upon_Trent_Central_Hotel-Burton_upon_Trent_Staffordshire_Engla.html
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 13-09-2017 at 1:47 PM.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 23rd Oct 17, 11:59 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Just to update on this I have received a Notice of Intended Court Proceedings from Excel. They have not used the new protocols. I am intending writing back to suggest that they follow the protocols. My understanding is that I will be able to drag this out for at least another two months which will give me chance to prepare if I decide to go down that route.

    I would appreciate someone on the site taking a look at an image of a sign but am unsure of how to upload the image. Thank you.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 23rd Oct 17, 12:54 PM
    • 4,411 Posts
    • 2,728 Thanks
    KeithP
    I would appreciate someone on the site taking a look at an image of a sign but am unsure of how to upload the image. Thank you.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly
    Host it on tinypic or somewhere similar and the post the url here.
    .
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 23rd Oct 17, 12:57 PM
    • 4,411 Posts
    • 2,728 Thanks
    KeithP
    Just to update on this I have received a Notice of Intended Court Proceedings from Excel. They have not used the new protocols. I am intending writing back to suggest that they follow the protocols. My understanding is that I will be able to drag this out for at least another two months which will give me chance to prepare if I decide to go down that route.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly
    There are several LBC replies around.

    Here's a recent one, which refers to the new protocols, linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread:

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73208118#post73208118
    .
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 23rd Oct 17, 1:12 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    Thank you Keith. I will use that reply and modify it to my circumstances. Will try to upload the image.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 23rd Oct 17, 1:35 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly
    http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmzAy%2FKxamMLsTdhWZIh4l5k2TGx c#.We3gV3mWyic


    The font that relates to the charges and the formation of the contract seems small to me.
    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 23-10-2017 at 1:49 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Oct 17, 1:46 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 946 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont suggest, tell. they have no choice but to comply, otherwise you start building a case for a) the claim to be struck out and b) costs.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Oct 17, 2:13 PM
    • 15,424 Posts
    • 24,121 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=NuVqmzAy%2FKxamMLsTdhWZIh4l5k2TGx c#.We3gV3mWyic


    The font that relates to the charges and the formation of the contract seems small to me.
    Originally posted by Snakes Belly
    It’s something you would make of in a court case. You will also need to pray-in-aid the Supreme Court comments of what a clear signage looks like, especially the very clear, unmissable level of the parking charge in the event of breach.

    But keep this for Court, because nothing you can fire back to Excel will make any difference at this stage.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Snakes Belly
    • By Snakes Belly 24th Oct 17, 1:17 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    Snakes Belly



    Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Notice of Intended Court Proceedings of 12th October 2017.

    You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

    As a serial litigator you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter. As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding you are sending a consumer a notice of intending court proceedings in ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

    Nobody, including you is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocols.

    I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:


    1) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

    2) Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    3). Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”.
    4) Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    5) Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

    6)Provide details of how the monies being charged arose and how they have been calculated.
    7) Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form.


    If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until you have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


    Please note that I will only respond when you have complied with the Protocol. I will not respond to third party debt collectors so to engage them will be futile.

    Note also that I have discussed aspects of this matter with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and they are of the opinion that I may have a case of indirect discrimination against you. They have opened a case and are awaiting further information.

    I note your comments regarding my appeal to IAS. As I am sure you are aware that there is currently a PMB going through Parliament which will gain cross party support. Part of the reason for this is because IAS is considered unfit for purpose and I am sure that a County Court Judge will be very aware of this development.

    Should this matter be decided in the County Court I will be making a counter claim.

    Thanks for the sample letter responding to Excel who have not complied with the Protocols. I have adapted it somewhat and would be grateful if someone would kindly scan it over please. Thank you.
    I have deleted some of the requests for information. I was unsure whether to do this however as I have appealed to IAS some of that information is available to me already. I was not certain if I was starting from scratch again.
    Thanks for the use of this letter. I would not have been able to put anything together like that myself.




    Last edited by Snakes Belly; 24-10-2017 at 2:50 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

178Posts Today

2,290Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin